Masters Of War

Come you masters of war You that build all the guns You that build the death planes You that build all the bombs You that hide behind walls You that hide behind desks I just want you to know I can see through your masks. You that never done nothin' But build to destroy You play with my world Like it's your little toy You put a gun in my hand And you hide from my eyes And you turn and run farther When the fast bullets fly. Like Judas of old You lie and deceive A world war can be won You want me to believe But I see through your eyes And I see through your brain Like I see through the water That runs down my drain. You fasten all the triggers For the others to fire Then you set back and watch When the death count gets higher You hide in your mansion' As young people's blood Flows out of their bodies And is buried in the mud. You've thrown the worst fear That can ever be hurled Fear to bring children Into the world For threatening my baby Unborn and unnamed You ain't worth the blood That runs in your veins. How much do I know To talk out of turn You might say that I'm young You might say I'm unlearned But there's one thing I know Though I'm younger than you That even Jesus would never Forgive what you do. Let me ask you one question Is your money that good Will it buy you forgiveness Do you think that it could I think you will find When your death takes its toll All the money you made Will never buy back your soul. And I hope that you die And your death'll come soon I will follow your casket In the pale afternoon And I'll watch while you're lowered Down to your deathbed And I'll stand over your grave 'Til I'm sure that you're dead.------- Bob Dylan 1963

Wednesday, June 30, 2010

“General Petraeus is a military man constantly at war with the facts,” began the MoveOn.org attack ad against Gen. David Petraeus back in 2007, after he had delivered a report to Congress on the status of the war in Iraq. George W. Bush was president, and MoveOn was accusing Petraeus of “cooking the books for the White House.” The campaign asked “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?” on a full-page ad in The Washington Post. MoveOn took tremendous heat for the campaign, but stood its ground.

Three years later, Barack Obama is president, Petraeus has become his man in Afghanistan, and MoveOn pulls the critical Web content. Why? Because Bush’s first war, Afghanistan, has become Obama’s war, a quagmire. The U.S. will eventually negotiate its withdrawal from Afghanistan. The only difference between now and then will be the number of dead, on all sides, and the amount of (borrowed) money that will be spent. Petraeus’ confirmation to become the military commander in Afghanistan was never in question. He replaces Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who resigned shortly after his macho criticisms of his civilian leadership became public in a recent Rolling Stone magazine article.

The statistics for Afghanistan, Obama’s Vietnam, are surging. June, with at least 100 U.S. deaths, is the highest number reported since the invasion in 2001. 2010 is on pace to be the year with the highest U.S. fatalities. Similar fates have befallen soldiers from the other, so-called coalition countries. Petraeus is becoming commander not only of the U.S. military in Afghanistan, but of all forces, as the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan is run by NATO. U.S. troops, expected to rise to 98,000 this year, far outnumber those from other nations. Public and political support in many of those countries is waning.

Journalist Michael Hastings, who wrote the Rolling Stone piece, was in Paris with McChrystal to profile him. What didn’t get as much attention was Hastings’ description of why McChrystal was there: “He’s in France to sell his new war strategy to our NATO allies—to keep up the fiction, in essence, that we actually have allies. Since McChrystal took over a year ago, the Afghan war has become the exclusive property of the United States. Opposition to the war has already toppled the Dutch government, forced the resignation of Germany’s president and sparked both Canada and the Netherlands to announce the withdrawal of their 4,500 troops. McChrystal is in Paris to keep the French, who have lost more than 40 soldiers in Afghanistan, from going all wobbly on him.”

The whistle-blower website WikiLeaks.org, which received international attention after releasing leaked video from a U.S. attack helicopter showing the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians and a Reuters cameraman and his driver in Baghdad, has just posted a confidential CIA memo detailing possible public relations strategies to counter waning public support for the Afghan War. The agency memo reads: “If domestic politics forces the Dutch to depart, politicians elsewhere might cite a precedent for ‘listening to the voters.’ French and German leaders have over the past two years taken steps to preempt an upsurge of opposition but their vulnerability may be higher now.”

I just returned from Toronto, covering the G-20 summit and the protests. The gathered leaders pledged, among other things, to reduce government deficits by 50 percent by 2013. In the U.S., that means cutting $800 billion, or about 20 percent of the budget. Two Nobel Prize-winning economists have weighed in with grave predictions. Joseph Stiglitz said, “There are many cases where these kinds of austerity measures have led to ... recessions into depressions.” And Paul Krugman wrote: “Who will pay the price for this triumph of orthodoxy? The answer is, tens of millions of unemployed workers, many of whom will go jobless for years, and some of whom will never work again.”

In order to make the cuts promised, Obama would have to raise taxes and cut social programs such as Social Security and Medicare. Or he could cut the war budget. I say “war budget” because it is not to be confused with a defense budget. Cities and states across the country are facing devastating budget crises. Pensions are being wiped out. Foreclosures are continuing at record levels. A true defense budget would shore up our schools, our roads, our towns, our social safety net. The U.S. House of Representatives is under pressure to pass a $33 billion Afghan War supplemental this week. We can’t afford war."

Amy Goodman is the host of “Democracy Now!,” a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on more than 800 stations in North America. She is the author of “Breaking the Sound Barrier,” recently released in paperback and now a New York Times best-seller.

The dire threat of Iran is widely recognized to be the most serious foreign policy crisis facing the Obama administration. Congress has just strengthened the sanctions against Iran, with even more severe penalties against foreign companies. The Obama administration has been rapidly expanding its offensive capacity in the African island of Diego Garcia, claimed by Britain, which had expelled the population so that the US could build the massive base it uses for attacking the Middle East and Central Asia. The Navy reports sending a submarine tender to the island to service nuclear-powered guided-missile submarines with Tomahawk missiles, which can carry nuclear warheads. Each submarine is reported to have the striking power of a typical carrier battle group. According to a US Navy cargo manifest obtained by the Sunday Herald (Glasgow), the substantial military equipment Obama has dispatched includes 387 “bunker busters” used for blasting hardened underground structures. Planning for these “massive ordnance penetrators,” the most powerful bombs in the arsenal short of nuclear weapons, was initiated in the Bush administration, but languished. On taking office, Obama immediately accelerated the plans, and they are to be deployed several years ahead of schedule, aiming specifically at Iran.

“They are gearing up totally for the destruction of Iran,” according to Dan Plesch, director of the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy at the University of London. “US bombers and long range missiles are ready today to destroy 10,000 targets in Iran in a few hours,” he said. “The firepower of US forces has quadrupled since 2003,” accelerating under Obama.

The Arab press reports that an American fleet (with an Israeli vessel) passed through the Suez Canal on the way to the Persian Gulf, where its task is “to implement the sanctions against Iran and supervise the ships going to and from Iran.” British and Israeli media report that Saudi Arabia is providing a corridor for Israeli bombing of Iran (denied by Saudi Arabia). On his return from Afghanistan to reassure NATO allies that the US will stay the course after the replacement of General McChrystal by his superior, General Petraeus, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen visited Israel to meet Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi and senior Israeli military staff along with intelligence and planning units, continuing the annual strategic dialogue between Israel and the U.S. in Tel Aviv. The meeting focused “on the preparation by both Israel and the U.S. for the possibility of a nuclear capable Iran,” according to Haaretz, which reports further that Mullen emphasized that “I always try to see challenges from Israeli perspective.” Mullen and Ashkenazi are in regular contact on a secure line.

The increasing threats of military action against Iran are of course in violation of the UN Charter, and in specific violation of Security Council resolution 1887 of September 2009 which reaffirmed the call to all states to resolve disputes related to nuclear issues peacefully, in accordance with the Charter, which bans the use or threat of force.

Some respected analysts describe the Iranian threat in apocalyptic terms. Amitai Etzioni warns that “The U.S. will have to confront Iran or give up the Middle East,” no less. If Iran’s nuclear program proceeds, he asserts, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and other states will “move toward” the new Iranian “superpower”; in less fevered rhetoric, a regional alliance might take shape independent of the US. In the US army journal Military Review, Etzioni urges a US attack that targets not only Iran’s nuclear facilities but also its non-nuclear military assets, including infrastructure – meaning, the civilian society. "This kind of military action is akin to sanctions - causing 'pain' in order to change behaviour, albeit by much more powerful means."

Such harrowing pronouncements aside, what exactly is the Iranian threat? An authoritative answer is provided in the April 2010 study of the International Institute of Strategic Studies, Military Balance 2010. The brutal clerical regime is doubtless a threat to its own people, though it does not rank particularly high in that respect in comparison to US allies in the region. But that is not what concerns the Institute. Rather, it is concerned with the threat Iran poses to the region and the world.

The study makes it clear that the Iranian threat is not military. Iran’s military spending is “relatively low compared to the rest of the region,” and less than 2% that of the US. Iranian military doctrine is strictly “defensive,… designed to slow an invasion and force a diplomatic solution to hostilities.” Iran has only “a limited capability to project force beyond its borders.” With regard to the nuclear option, “Iran’s nuclear program and its willingness to keep open the possibility of developing nuclear weapons is a central part of its deterrent strategy.”

Our first full day in Louisiana finds us venturing south from New Orleans to Houma, a town about an hours drive to the southwest. It is from here we are to take a flight over the marsh to inspect the damage, thus far, caused by the ongoing BP oil catastrophe.

Walking into the office of Butler Aviation Services at the airport, the downtrodden mood, and accompanying anger, are palpable. Of course this is not assisted by the fact that Vice President Joe Biden is visiting Louisiana today.

“What would you tell Joe if he walked into your office,” Robbie Butler, with the flight service of his name, asks me. He then adds, “Hey Joe, lead, follow, or get out of the way. That’s what I’d tell him.”

At approximately the same time Butler is telling me of these three excellent suggestions, Biden is in downtown New Orleans inside the “command center” meeting with more than 100 BP, government and military officials inside a cavernous office dubbed “the bullpen.” In case anyone wasn’t clear about the priorities of the US government, included in Biden’s entourage are BP’s chief operating officer Doug Suttles, and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal. It was Jindal who, on June 2nd, sent an urgent letter to President Obama and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar regarding his grave concerns at the time of the administration’s decision to place a moratorium on deepwater drilling.

The lead paragraph in that letter made it very clear how Jindal’s concern is not with the ongoing catastrophic loss of ecosystems, or even the fisherpersons of his state, but with placating big oil. His letter begins:

“Dear President Obama and Secretary Salazar:I am writing to express my grave concerns regarding the severe economic impact of a six-month (or longer) suspension of activity at 33 previously permitted deepwater drilling rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, including and in particular the 22 deepwater drilling rigs currently in operation off the Louisiana coast.”

But thanks to an oil-backed judge doing away with said moratorium, and another Obama move regarding offshore drilling, Jindal need not have lost any sleep.

On June 18 Obama administration officials, despite President Obama’s promises for better safeguards for offshore drilling, approved plans for oil companies to drill in the Gulf of Mexico with minimal or no environmental analysis. Since Jindal’s letter on June 2nd, the Department of Interior’s Minerals Management Service has signed off on at least five new offshore drilling projects.

After an hour-long briefing in “the bullpen,” Biden was impressed with what he saw.

“I don’t think the American people have any idea” how many resources are being used to fight the spill, he said.

Butler, on the other hand, along with most folks in southern Louisiana, is not as impressed. He’s been flying people, nearly every day since the disaster began in April, over the affected areas. He begins telling me about what he is seeing.

“It’s not as bad as they show it on TV,” Butler says, “It’s worse. Much worse.”

He looks outside the window at storm clouds forming to our south, then looks back at me.

“There’s no end in sight,” he says sternly, looking deep into my eyes.

Butler Aviation does most of its business as a taxi service, ferrying people around the Gulf coast region, and their business, like that of most businesses in Louisiana now, is down. Way down.

And Butler Aviation is not alone in feeling the pinch. The US Small Business Administration is turning down 70 percent of Louisiana companies that are applying for Gulf oil disaster relief loans.

Contrary to Biden’s statement about American people not having “any idea” how many resources are being used to fight the spill, these “American people” have a precise “idea” about how many resources are being used to fight the oil disaster.

As though fate chose to underscore the vacuous remarks of the Vice President, on the front page of today’s Times-Picayune of New Orleans is a story about how US government bureaucracy is preventing large numbers of oil-skimming boats from reaching the Gulf of Mexico. For more than a week federal response officials have been pressed to streamline US maritime restrictions that would allow more foreign skimming vessels to be put to work in the Gulf.

As an example, the oil giant Shell is in negotiations to allow BP to use its 300-foot oil recovery boat that is sitting idle in Seward, Alaska. But in recent weeks, BP has declined to bring it to the Gulf.

“Nothing would prevent it from working right now in the Gulf of Mexico,” states Curtis Smith, a spokesperson for Shell Alaska, “It remains available in the event that BP reconsiders.”

According to BP, there are 433 vessels collecting oil in the Gulf, but less than a third of them are boats designed specifically for oil skimming. Meanwhile, more than 850 skimmers are available in the southeastern United States, and more than 1,600 are available in the continental US.

We go outside and meet Charlie Hammond, our pilot who is to fly us. Charlie has more than five years in the air, literally, with more than 45,000 hours of flying time. He’s been flying this area that encompasses the Mississippi Delta most of his life.

It turns out, due to a combination of growing storms and Biden’s visit temporarily blocking off air travel over some of the area we are to fly, we have to postpone our plans for aerial photography. Nevertheless, Charlie spends some time showing us on a map how much of southern Louisiana, existing on what is the massive delta of the Mississippi River, is vanishing before his eyes.

I learn that due to a combination of part of the Mississippi River having been diverted (thus stopping the natural regeneration of land from silt deposits), oyster beds being depleted in the past, oil-production infrastructure causing erosion of wetlands, and now oil from the new disaster destroying marshlands, the Cajun coast is the fastest disappearing landmass on Earth. In fact, every 30-minutes sees an area the size of a football field disappear into the Gulf of Mexico.

“I’ve seen large areas of this land, and many islands, disappear in my time,” he says, his white hair blowing in the wind, “We’re living on a dying delta.”

He goes on to describe how when he flies over the marsh that has been soiled in BP’s oil, “It looks like it’s been hit with a blow-torch.”

After visiting with Charlie, we decide to drive further south to Grand Isle, one of the areas in the state that saw some of the first oil born of the volcano gushing from the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico.

Trees disappear as we travel southward and the marsh extends from the road into the grey horizon. Green areas of marsh appear as though they are floating atop brown waters as we pass through small towns along the way.

In one of these, on a sign outside of Austin’s Fresh Shrimp shack, is another sign that reads “Shut Down Due to BP.”

In another town a US flag flies at half-mast.

Shrimp boats line the bayou paralleling the road, tied to shore, empty of crew, waiting…

Down in Grand Isle, a small town right on the edge of the Gulf of Mexico, signs of local discontent abound.

My partner Erika promptly becomes immersed in taking photographs of the rows of white crosses, as each symbolizes some part of the culture or wildlife that has been decimated by this ongoing, growing catastrophe that threatens to annihilate the entire Gulf of Mexico if it is not stopped.

A large cross stands out front of the rows of smaller crosses. Upon it is written, “Our Soul.” In the background stands several empty crab traps arranged in the form of a cross.

Some of the things locals have written on these crosses: Family time, crabs, white trout, camping, diving, walking the dog on the beach, sea shells, sea turtles, dolphins, BBQ shrimp, sharks, sand between my toes, boogie boarding, mullet, marsh, palm trees…

Later, as we drive back north towards New Orleans, I feel a seething rage towards BP and the US government. It is easy to vent my frustrations towards this giant oil company with the worst safety record on the planet. It is easy to rage at the US corporate-controlled so-called government. They are both easy targets for our rage.

I also think of my own hypocrisy, and how much gasoline we’ve used whilst driving today. I think about how riding my bicycle around my small town, composting and growing our own vegetables is not enough. I watch darkening storm clouds, full of rain, while I wonder what else I can do. And I think about how, with enough collective will and passion, we could use this growing tragedy as a pivot point towards weaning ourselves off fossil fuels.

On Tuesday, the Cold War finally ended with a historic trade agreement between China and Taiwan that will dramatically integrate the mainland’s economy with that of its claimed breakaway province. Peace has descended on the most contentious point of conflict between East and West for the past six decades—but don’t expect the folks at the Pentagon or their military contractors to celebrate. The remaining raison d’être for much of their $700 billion budget has suddenly collapsed, and with it the claim on huge profits and high-flying careers.

The bulk of that money, higher in constant dollars than at any other time since World War II, is spent on weapons systems to fight a sophisticated Cold War enemy that went out of business with the breakdown of the Soviet Union. And the so-called “war on terror” does not cut it as a substitute excuse for feeding the immense maw of the military-industrial complex. It is laughable to suggest that the ever more complex and costly high-tech weaponry we continue to build is needed to defeat an opponent armed with the box cutters used by the 9/11 hijackers or a primitive roadside bomb set off by an Iraqi insurgent.

When Sen. Joe Lieberman makes his annual case for those $2.5 billion submarines produced in his home state of Connecticut, his central argument has been that the Chinese are building equally sophisticated weapons that threaten us. “If we do not move to produce two submarines a year as soon as possible, we are in serious danger of falling behind China,” he thundered during one Senate debate. Obviously, it’s harder to make the case that submarines are needed to capture al-Qaida terrorists holed up in some landlocked nation’s mountain caves. So too with the ever more advanced arsenal designed to penetrate enemy defenses not even built when those Cold War adversaries still operated.

“The Chinese are coming” became the last refuge of war-profiteering scoundrels once the Russians started cutting back dramatically, but this alarm was never plausible. The authoritative quadrennial Defense Department reports have always made clear that China has at most threatened to become a regional power with Taiwan as its focus. Yet that pathetic excuse for the U.S. spending as much on its military as do the rest of the world nations combined seemed plausible to most in Congress who voted for massive military appropriations even as our government had to borrow money from the Chinese to cover our deficits.

Then those treacherous Chinese, both the mainland Communists and their feuding Taiwan-based cousins, had to go and ruin a good thing by going way beyond kissing and making up. Even when they were verbally warring they were still doing business together during this past decade. Trade between the two is already a hefty $110 billion, 41 percent of Taiwan’s exports, but the new agreement will much expand that by ending tariffs on key products while opening up the financial services industry to investors from what was once an impenetrable cross-strait divide. Taiwanese business investment on the mainland is already massive, but now it will enter the realm of the mainland’s high finance with the world economy as its playground.

The prospect of war between the two, already vastly diminished from Cold War highs, will soon not be possible without hitting their own investment assets on the other side. Which is exactly the peace of the new world order that some U.S. leaders, most prominently the first President Bush, had once welcomed. The question is whether Americans truly believe they can be winners in a world built on expanding trade rather than on military tension.

One has to wonder about our priorities when Congress cannot find the $34 billion needed to continue unemployment payments for six months to 1.7 million workers thrown out of jobs but never questions that sort of spending on military hardware with no logical purpose. The proud promise of American capitalism, often in conflict with a drearier reality, was that our economy did not need military conquest to succeed. Now it is the Chinese, of varying ideological disposition, the heirs of Mao Zedong and Chiang Kai-shek, who will test our commitment to that principle. Clearly those former enemies have concluded that power, in the modern world economy, does not grow out of the barrel of a gun, even from a very big and enormously expensive one.

The China-Taiwan agreement and its implications also raise some questions for Americans: How does a modern nation obtain national security? Are we more secure with our permanent war economy, or is the pursuit of peace through trade and diplomacy, as the formerly most bitter of Chinese enemies are demonstrating, a better way?

In mid-June, Hugh Tomlinson in the Times of London wrote that the government of Saudi Arabia conferred on Israel the "green light" for use of its airspace for an attack on Iran. This revelation was said to be conventional wisdom inside the Saudi military. Tomlinson also quoted an unnamed United States military source stating to the effect that the US Department of State and the Defense Department had both said "grace" over this arrangement. The Saudis and Israelis immediately denied the report, while US officials made no specific comments on the subject. The silence and denials nixed further media speculation.

First reported in the Times of London in July 2009 and referred to again in Tomlinson's recent article is word of a supposed meeting between Israel's Mossad chief Meir Dagan and unnamed Saudi intelligence leaders to discuss such an arrangement that both governments denied then and now.

Given the apparent regional political status quo, how might the

Israeli Air Force (IAF) strike Iran undetected on approach and at the very least unacknowledged on return if the decision is made in Jerusalem that the existential threat posed by Iran's arc of nuclear progress can no longer safely be tolerated?

Although the coordination of logistics and tactics of such a long distance mission - 1,000 miles (1,600 kilometers) on the straight line from Tel Aviv to Iran's uranium enrichment facility in Natanz - is daunting, the strategic or political realities must be defined before all else.

Overflight of Iraq on a direct bearing to Iran is out of the question. Such a path would cause friction between the US, responsible for Iraq's aerial sovereignty, and the next Iraqi government sure to be of delicate composition. It's safe to assume that the US views stability in Iraq far higher on the national interest meter than say apartments in east Jerusalem, thus for Israel the straight line over Iraq comes at a price that it can ill afford to pay.

The likely route to Iran, beginning at regional dusk preferably in the dark a new moon, is to fly a great circle around Iraq. Only careful planning carried out with precision timing and execution will ensure success. For this route, almost every applicable IAF logistics and support asset would be utilized.

The first leg for any F-15I and F-16I fighter bombers is a low-level run up the Mediterranean in the area of the Syrian town of Latakin, where up to three KC-707s (aerial tankers) in race track orbit would top up the tanks of the strike group. This tankage is absolutely necessary for the shorter-legged F-16I (range 1,300 miles). Refueling the F-15I (range 2765 miles) is desirable but not a necessity unless intelligence suggests targets beyond eastern Iran.

To skirt Turkish airspace and the ability of the Turkish military to raise an alarm heard throughout the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the strike group with two pairs of Gulfstream G-550s: one of each outfitted as a network-centric collaborative targeting (NCCT) and one each employing Senior Suter technology must fly low across northern Syria. The G-550 is a small package with the range the speed to accompany the strike group round trip without refueling - therefore up to the challenge.

The NCCT aircraft ferrets out air defense radars. The Suter partner beams a data stream containing, what in computer parlance is called a a "worm", into air defense radars with the capability of incapacitating an entire air defense network, if such a network is under centralized control.

This technology pioneered by the US Air Force and part of the code named the "Big Safari" program is heady stuff said to work wonders over Syria during the IAF's strike on Syria's North Korean-designed nuclear reactor in September 2007. The support of the G-550s will be instrumental every mile of the mission.

Non-networked anti-aircraft artillery (AAA) in states hostile to Israel may necessitate F-16Is in the tried and true AGM-88 high speed anti-radiation missile (HARM) mission.

Yet another application of high technology was the launch on June 11, 2007, of Ofek-7, as noted by Richard B Gasparre, also a source on G-550s in IAF service at airforce-technology.com, is a "... reconnaissance satellite, which gives Israeli intelligence specialists site and system mapping capability of unprecedented accuracy". Ofek-7 undoubtedly contributed to strike planning for the IAF's mission to Syria.

These powerful tools will be counted on to enable the strike package to skirt either Turkish or Iraqi airspace for a short jump of 150 or so miles to reach Iranian airspace undetected. The distance on a straight line from Latakin to Tabriz in Iran is 618 miles. The flight is shorter if the Israelis avoid Turkey and cut the Kurdish corner.

At a designated point over northern Iran, the strike group splits into Q and E-flights. Q-Flight flies southeast 348 miles to reach the known uranium-enrichment sites in Qom (under construction) and Natanz (operational). E-Flight homes in on the gas storage development site at Esfahan and the heavy water reactor complex at Arak on a more southerly path of 481 miles.

All the while in Iranian airspace, the G-550 Suter and NCCT aircraft work in tandem and with F-16I aircraft to suppress radars and AAA, while F-15Is designated top cover guard against any air-to-air threat put up by Iran's air force.

The strike package can count on aid in the form of Popeye Turbo cruise missiles launched by at least one Israeli submarine from the Arabian Sea against targets in Iran designed to shield the Israeli planes, degrade enemy responses and sow confusion among the Iranian military.

At some point, one of the three US Air Force RC-135 Rivet Joint ELINT (electronic intelligence) platforms in the area will "see" Iranian air defense radars and hear an explosion of Iranian voices on open airwaves and quickly piece together events in Iran. This collected product will be immediately passed through Central Command to Washington for dissemination to the principles of the National Security Council, including US President Barack Obama. Seven hours earlier, at least three IAF KC-707s would have flown the 3,500 miles around the Arabian Peninsula, likely painted up like commercial 707 cargo aircraft, transiting international airspace to a meeting point over the northern Persian Gulf. At this extreme range, each KC-707 carries only an estimated 85,000 lbs of fuel to pass to the hungry F-16Is flying 451 miles from Qom and 350 miles from Esfahan.

Each F-16I will require at least 5,000 lbs of jet fuel for the final leg of nearly 1,000 miles through northern Saudi Arabia then home. Thus, a hinge point in IAF planning; the Israelis must determine the mix of F-16Is and KC-707s committed to the mission.

On and over the Persian Gulf, given the presence of US Navy and Air Force AWACS platforms such as the EC-2 Hawkeye and E-3 Sentry along with SPY-1 radars of US Navy cruisers and destroyers, the Israelis can have no expectation at all that the refueling scrum of the F-16Is will go undetected. During this evolution, any IAF planes too damaged to make it home can ditch close to a US Navy ship with a reasonable expectation of rescue.

Much will depend on what the US does with the information in hand. Does Obama choose to inform Iraqi and Gulf Cooperation Council allies of the situation, or will various US radars simply go into "diagnostic mode", as if operators cannot believe what they see?

If Obama's decision is to watch and listen, the strike group can try a run for home across northern Saudi Arabia. Here, the Saudis have a decision. The Saudi Air Force can defend the kingdom's airspace, possibly taking loses and handing out same, or the Israelis can bet on G-550s tricking out the kingdom's air defenses in a manner that gives the Saudis an excuse to say they were blinded by the IAF and the non-cooperation of the US.

By flying north, the IAF reaps the benefits of plausible deniability, a political necessity for US and allied Arab states. These states can honestly say they had no prior knowledge of IAF planes winging it to Iran with full racks of missiles and bombs.

Another option is available to the Israelis to increase the IAF's odds of flying the northern leg undetected. This choice is to strike the "Duchy of Nasrallah" - Hezbollah under Hassan Nasrallah in Lebanon - to create cover and sow confusion. If the IAF is to strike Iran, immediate blowback is to be expected from Iran-supported Hezbollah's extensive inventory of unguided missiles.

On June 18, the aircraft carrier USS Harry S Truman and task group including the German frigate Hessen in the company of an unidentified Israeli naval vessel made a fast transit of the Suez Canal. The Egyptians not only closed the canal to all traffic, all fishing boats where docked, while the Egyptian military lined the banks of the canal. All facets of this passage rank as extraordinary.

It is readily apparent that the US Department of State and the Pentagon collaborated closely with an Arab country to create a lane of fast transit not only for US Navy assets and an attached NATO ally, but for an Israeli ship.

One more element, the IDF launched their improved Ofek-9 reconnaissance satellite on June 22. Is this a matter of timing or of coincidence?

Tensions are high in the region, yet little could precipitate a full diplomatic meltdown quicker than for Iran to directly challenge Israel's blockade of Gaza. And this confrontation is in no way limited to Israel and Iran. Such a provocation could easily inflame public opinion in Sunni Arab states, where leaders are weary of Tehran's grandstanding on the question of Israel. Tehran's rhetoric of threats toward Israel politically undermines Arab governments seen as less fervent on the subject.

CNN reported on June 24 on Iran's canceled designs to directly test the Gaza blockade. Hossein Sheikholeslam, secretary general of the International Conference for the Support of the Palestinian Intifada, said, "In order not to give the Zionist regime an excuse, we will send the aid through other routes and without Iran's name."

Sheiholeslam's comment makes little sense, as the point of Iran's aid exercise was to win the propaganda war against Israel and Arab states. Whatever Iran's "excuse", there is reason now to suspect the Tehran regime will back down if decisively confronted by a motivated and unified coalition of area states.

David Moon is a regular contributor from the United States. He can be contacted at uscontributor@aol.com.

Five things you need to know about one of the world's most dangerous places.

Frontier soldiers take part in a training on the beach of Sanya, south China's Hainan province, Nov. 15, 2006. (China Daily/Reuters)

TAIPEI, Taiwan — It's a 3.5 million-square kilometer stretch of ocean, speckled with some 200 coral atolls, some submerged or so tiny they hardly deserve to be called islands.

Welcome to the South China Sea, an obscure patch of global real estate that you're likely to hear more about in coming years.

Six Asian countries have long had competing — at times comical — claims to various islands here, sending token military forces to occupy barren rocks at great expense in the name of national pride.

What's new is China's muscle-flexing, which, if trends continue, could make the South China Sea one of Asia's most dangerous flash-points.

Fueling tensions in the sea are untapped oil and natural gas reserves, China's growing strategic interest in protecting sea lanes by which it gets some of its oil, and Beijing's desire to develop a "blue-water" navy capable of projecting power far beyond China's shores.

The U.S. is paying closer attention to the South China Sea, after China reportedly threatened U.S. energy firm ExxonMobil with retaliation if it continued oil exploration off Vietnam in waters China considers its own. And last year Chinese military vessels harassed U.S. surveillance ships in the sea.

Earlier this month, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates made what's believed to be the highest-level public U.S. remarks to date on the issue.

"The South China Sea is an area of growing concern," he said at a security forum in Singapore. "This sea is not only vital to those directly bordering it, but to all nations with economic and security interests in Asia."

Gates repeated the U.S.' longstanding policy that it takes no position on conflicting sovereignty claims in the South China Sea.

But he said the U.S. believes "it is essential that stability, freedom of navigation, and free and unhindered economic development be maintained" and that "we object to any effort to intimidate U.S. corporations or those of any nation engaged in legitimate economic activity."

Here's a primer on the issue:

1) Why does America care?

The U.S. objects to any attempts to intimidate American energy companies operating in the South China Sea, which stretches from China all the way south to Indonesia. It also insists on the right of free navigation in international waters, defined, in accordance with customary international law, as any waters beyond 12 nautical miles from a nation's shoreline.

China says its sovereign territorial waters extend 200 miles from its shores, and makes a historical claim to almost all of the South China Sea, according to a backgrounder from the Heritage Foundation. China also says that any ship traversing the sea should first obtain Chinese permission. It has long complained about U.S. intelligence-gathering from spy-planes and spy-ships operating off its coastline.

2) Who else claims territory in the South China Sea?

Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei also claim all or some of the South China Sea. Vietnam and China both claim the Paracels islands (known as the Xisha in Chinese), which China has controlled since a 1974 battle with Vietnam that left 18 dead. The other four countries as well as China and Vietnam also claim some or all of the Spratly Islands (known as the Nansha in Chinese) further south.

China's hold here is more tenuous; a skeleton force occupies nine speck-like islands, while Taiwan holds the largest island Itu Aba (or Taiping island, in Chinese), Vietnam holds 29 islands, the Philippines eight and Malaysia three, according to Michael Richardson, a visiting researcher at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, in a recent commentary. More than 70 Vietnamese sailors died in the latest military clash in the Spratlys, with China in 1988.

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Under proposed system, countries would not have to buy up foreign currencies, as China has done with U.S. dollar.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

U.S. "dollar has proved not to be a stable store of value," report says

Dollar under increasing scrutiny since U.S. entered recession

U.N. report supports proposal to create standardized international system

Under proposal, countries would no long have to buy up foreign currencies

New York (CNN) -- The dollar is an unreliable international currency and should be replaced by a more stable system, the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs said in a report released Tuesday.

The use of the dollar for international trade came under increasing scrutiny when the U.S. economy fell into recession. "The dollar has proved not to be a stable store of value, which is a requisite for a stable reserve currency," the report said.

Many countries, in Asia in particular, have been building up massive dollar reserves. As a result, those countries' currencies have become undervalued, decreasing their ability to import goods from abroad.

The World Economic and Social Survey 2010 is supporting a proposal long advocated by the International Monetary Fund to create a standardized international system for liquidity transfer.

Under this proposed system, countries would no longer have to buy up foreign currencies, as China has long done with the U.S. dollar. Rather, they would accumulate the right to claim foreign currencies, or special drawing rights, or SDRs, rather than the currencies themselves.

The special drawing rights would be backed by a basket of currencies, which would make them less susceptible to volatility in any one currency. And because the value of a special drawing right is defined by the IMF, changes in the value of any one currency could be adjusted for.

These initiatives, supported by U.N. Secretary-general Ban Ki-moon, are meant to help sustain the international trade and financial systems that will allow less-developed countries to participate and integrate into the global economy.

In addition to the proposed reforms regarding international currency, the survey also offered guidance on increasing social well-being.

The survey said that "the number of the poor in the world living on less than $1.25 a day decreased from 1.8 billion in 1990 to 1.4 billion in 2005, but nearly all of this reduction was concentrated in China."

The number of poor increased in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia over the same period. Income inequalities within countries have increased since the early 1980s with few exceptions, the report said.

"There's too little aid being provided, it's too fragmented, and it's too volatile in terms of the resources that are flowing to countries," said Rob Vos, director of the development policy and analysis division of the U.N.

The survey projects that by 2050 the population will be at 9 billion, with 85 percent living in developing countries, and the global economy will have to sustain a system that will allow for "decent living."

By 2050, one of every four people living in a developed country and one in every seven in countries now being developed will be over age 65. The fast ageing of the population will call for proper pension and health care systems that are sustainable.

In an outstanding article entitled 'How Israeli propaganda shaped U.S. media coverage of the flotilla attack', Glenn Greenwald makes the argument that is self-evident in the title. As someone who was on the Mavi Marmara ship and interviewed frequently after the Israeli crime, I can attest to the accuracy of his findings, which are also applicable to the Canadian media and other global media outlets as well, albeit to a lesser extent.

After international pressure forced my kidnappers to release me and the other activists, Canadian media outlets kept asking me if it was we – the passengers of the ship – who had attacked the Israeli commandos! These questions were based solely on the footage released by the Israeli military and the Israeli narrative of what took place. Accordingly, it is worth taking a step back and looking at the big picture and the facts that have become common knowledge to everyone.

Amnesty International has called the siege of Gaza a “flagrant violation of international law” as have many other international organizations. The humanitarian aid ships and passengers were inspected and cleared from their points of departure, including Turkey, a NATO ally. The Israeli navy attacked the ship in the dead of the night with fully armed commandos in international waters, and even Israel does not dispute this fact. In reports from Bloomberg News, the Associated Press and Israeli papers in the days prior to the attack, Israel threatened to use force and any means necessary to stop the ships, a fact affirmed by Israeli ambassador to the USA Michael Oren in an interview after the attack on June 2nd.

And indeed they did. The Israeli military was firing at us from their vessels which approached the sides of our ship and the helicopters from above as well, even before a single soldier landed on deck. Here we had fully armed Israeli commandos firing live rounds, tear gas, sound grenades and other types of ammunition at unarmed activists of a humanitarian ship at night in international waters, and once again the media has criminalized us and victimized the perpetrators. Let me be clear: we had every right to defend ourselves and our ship against this illegal barbaric assault as our brothers were being wounded and killed. The reader must ask himself/herself: If someone attacked, invaded, burglarized my home with the latest weaponry in the middle of the night to hurt and kill, do I have the right to defend myself and would I? This was the situation for us on the ship, and hence the attempt at self-defense with sticks and slingshots on the one hand against warships, military vessels, helicopters, guns, tear gas, stun grenades and live ammunition on the other.

After the Israeli military took control of our ship, one of the first things it did was confiscate all cameras, footage, flash drives, media equipment and suspended any broadcasts from the ship. As I was thrown on the deck by four commandos and blindfolded with my hands tied behind my back and what seemed to be a soldier’s knee digging into my soon to be fractured ribs, this commando –who the Israelis would undoubtedly claim was acting in self-defense – demanded to know where my mobile phone was after inspecting my empty pockets. It is obvious that there were orders from the start of their operation to control the narrative and what the world sees – or rather doesn’t see. (Note: they never did get my mobile phone). On June 3rd , the Committee to Protect Journalists denounced Israel’s editing and distribution of footage confiscated from foreign journalists, stating “Israel has confiscated journalistic material and then manipulated it to serve its interests”. While this manipulated material was being broadcast to news outlets around the world, we were still under abduction and being held incommunicado by Israel. The few photos and videos that were smuggled out by the activists portray a very different picture of the events, even showing Israeli commandos -who were disarmed by the passengers- being treated for their wounds by the ship’s doctors.

Yet despite all this, Israel has refused an impartial inquiry into the incident, which speaks volumes in itself. If Israel has nothing to hide, why not let such inquiry take its course? Instead, a complete farce is occurring with Israel forming its own inquiry committee to investigate itself, acting as judge, jury and executioner. It has added two internationals - including a Canadian- to this committee, in a pathetic attempt to legitimize something illegitimate.

Just as Israel stated it was not using white phosphorous on the civilians of Gaza last year, claimed that murdered activist Thomas Hurndall was armed and just as it refused a UN investigation into the Jenin massacre in 2003, the pattern of Israeli lies and intransigence continues. And, as with the Israeli assault on the USS Liberty which killed 34 American sailors and wounded 171, the media in the USA covered it up and never investigated. It seems some things never change.

- Rifat Audeh was one of three Canadians on the Mavi Marmara ship when it was attacked in international waters by Israel. He is co-founder of Michigan Media Watch and former member of the Palestine Solidarity Movement’s Process Committee. He contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com.

"Former President Bill Clinton said during a panel discussion in South Africa that it may become necessary to blow up the Deepwater Horizon well that continues to spew oil into the Gulf of Mexico. "Unless we send the Navy down deep to blow up the well and cover the leak with piles and piles and piles of rock and debris, which may become necessary - you don't have to use a nuclear weapon by the way, I've seen all that stuff, just blow it up - unless we're going to do that, we are dependent on the technical expertise of these people from BP," Clinton said.

There has been some pressure for BP to simply blow up the well, with critics suggesting the company is forgoing that option out of a desire to get as much oil as possible from the rig. "If we demolish the well using explosives, the investment's gone," former nuclear submarine officer and a visiting scholar on nuclear policy at Columbia University Christopher Brownfield said in a Fox News interview in May. "They lose hundreds of millions of dollars from the drilling of the well, plus no lawmaker in his right mind would allow BP to drill again in that same spot. So basically, it's an all-or-nothing thing with BP: They either keep the well alive, or they lose their whole investment and all the oil that they could potentially get from that well."

Well, we can't have BP lose their investment in this project now, can we? God forbid they lose their access to all that potential profit, right? And all those poor shareholders missing out on those fat dividend payments, how tragic! That would just break my damned heart... - CP

Long wars are antithetical to democracy. Protracted conflict introduces toxins that inexorably corrode the values of popular government. Not least among those values is a code of military conduct that honors the principle of civilian control while keeping the officer corps free from the taint of politics. Events of the past week -- notably the Rolling Stone profile that led to Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal's dismissal -- hint at the toll that nearly a decade of continuous conflict has exacted on the U.S. armed forces. The fate of any one general qualifies as small beer: Wearing four stars does not signify indispensability. But indications that the military's professional ethic is eroding, evident in the disrespect for senior civilians expressed by McChrystal and his inner circle, should set off alarms.

Earlier generations of American leaders, military as well as civilian, instinctively understood the danger posed by long wars. "A democracy cannot fight a Seven Years War," Gen. George C. Marshall once remarked. The people who provided the lifeblood of the citizen army raised to wage World War II had plenty of determination but limited patience. They wanted victory won and normalcy restored.

The wisdom of Marshall's axiom soon became clear. In Vietnam, Lyndon B. Johnson plunged the United States into what became its Seven Years War. The citizen army that was sent to Southeast Asia fought valiantly for a time and then fell to pieces. As the conflict dragged on, Americans in large numbers turned against the war -- and also against the troops who fought it.

After Vietnam, the United States abandoned its citizen army tradition, oblivious to the consequences. In its place, it opted for what the Founders once called a "standing army" -- a force consisting of long-serving career professionals.

For a time, the creation of this so-called all-volunteer force, only tenuously linked to American society, appeared to be a master stroke. Washington got superbly trained soldiers and Republicans and Democrats took turns putting them to work. The result, once the Cold War ended, was greater willingness to intervene abroad. As Americans followed news reports of U.S. troops going into action everywhere from the Persian Gulf to the Balkans, from the Caribbean to the Horn of Africa, they found little to complain about: The costs appeared negligible. Their role was simply to cheer.

This happy arrangement now shows signs of unraveling, a victim of what the Pentagon has all too appropriately been calling its Long War.

The Long War is not America's war. It belongs exclusively to "the troops," lashed to a treadmill that finds soldiers and Marines either serving in a combat zone or preparing to deploy.

To be an American soldier today is to serve a people who find nothing amiss in the prospect of armed conflict without end. Once begun, wars continue, persisting regardless of whether they receive public support. President Obama's insistence to the contrary notwithstanding, this nation is not even remotely "at" war. In explaining his decision to change commanders without changing course in Afghanistan, the president offered this rhetorical flourish: "Americans don't flinch in the face of difficult truths." In fact, when it comes to war, the American people avert their eyes from difficult truths. Largely unaffected by events in Afghanistan and Iraq and preoccupied with problems much closer to home, they have demonstrated a fine ability to tune out war. Soldiers (and their families) are left holding the bag.

Plans for a missile base on South Korea's Jeju island, 450 kilometers, from Shanghai have threatened to disturb a precarious balance of power in the East China Sea. But Washington's aspirations to use the base have been blocked by residents of the island.

The administration of South Korean President Lee Myung-bak announced commitments in 2008 and 2009 to purchase and deploy a fleet of Aegis destroyers equipped with US anti-ballistic missile and radar systems, built jointly by Hyundai and Lockheed-Martin. To date, opposition to construction of the base and a pending lawsuit have delayed preparation of a home port for the ships. But following the March 26 sinking of the South Korean

The Cheonan incident has also accelerated preparation of a long-term US deployment in the region, including talk that a US carrier group may arrive shortly. ABC TV reported the proposal, which the Department of Defense subsequently denied. With the decision on the Jeju naval base remaining in abeyance, however, China's People's Liberation Army (PLA) has not announced its response.

The use of Jeju for bellicose purposes has long seemed counter-intuitive to its inhabitants. The island was declared a World Heritage site by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization in 2007 due to its unique geological and natural characteristics. It has become a model for Asia's ecotourism industry - and a favorite of Korean honeymooners, who get free sex-education classes at the Jeju Loveland theme park. The tourist economy is complemented by exports of seafood, livestock and agricultural products.

The Korean government sought public approval for siting the naval base at the Jeju villages of Hwaseon in 2002, and Miwi in 2005, but the proposal was rejected. When the base was proposed for Gangjeong in 2007, 94% of villagers opposed deployment. Pressure for the base has grown since construction of the new fleet was announced. Opponents of the base on Jeju have reported that numerous arrests and unusually high fines have arisen from their protests.

But residents of one tiny fishing village are resolute. Last month, they announced they would fight the administration ''to the death'' before allowing their island paradise to be turned into another Okinawa, where more than half the 47,000 American troops stationed in Japan are based. With pressure growing on the administration to begin construction, and the US Navy scheduling embarkation, the Choenan incident could not come at a more critical juncture.

South Korean defense and intelligence officials initially said that the sinking of the Cheonan - with the loss of 46 lives - did not involve North Korea. An international investigation, however, blamed Pyongyang for the incident. It was followed by a crackdown against the report's critics, and concerns persist that Seoul may be drifting toward rigid tendencies thought to have been abandoned when it ended one-party rule in 1987.

Civil investigator SC Shin, assigned by the Korean National Assembly to participate in the Cheonan investigation, found no evidence of damage to the interior of the ship, no burning of cable housings, nor any signs on sailors' bodies of pressure, burns or shrapnel from the alleged torpedo explosion.

He reported that the ship radioed naval headquarters and the Coast Guard that it had been grounded. Shin also reported that four Aegis destroyers of between 6,800 and 9,600 tonnes were participating in a naval exercise 130 kilometers from the scene, and he described the 1,200 ton Cheonan being split in two as the likely result of a collision with a much larger ship. After he made his findings public, he was charged with defamation by defense officials who blamed the wreckage on a North Korean

torpedo, and he was questioned by the Seoul Prosecutor's office. A member of the National Assembly who contradicted the report's conclusions was also charged with defamation. READ MORE

This is not too encouraging for me.
Considering I am thinking of moving to S/Korea.

"I saw where someone referred to Kanye West as a genius. This sort of half excused him for his public embarrassment of saying that certain musical judges had picked the wrong bimbo to be awarded one of those Cracker Jack prizes in the tits and ass ensemble of modern culture. We know all about ‘cultures’ here at the Petri Dish. We’ve got thousands of glass slides with things growing on them and as much dry ice as you’ll find at any of the major concerts. I tried to listen to some Kanye West so that I could catch some of his genius but I was compelled to turn it off before the genius part appeared. I did search engine his lyrics and here’s an example of what I got at random. I scanned a few more but I’ll spare you that. You can find more on your own time.

I can’t go to the S&MSM without coming across the name, ‘Gosselin’. It’s there every day. Every day, there are details about this train wreck that includes a brace of sextuplets. They were, or are or maybe they will be again, the biggest reality show going. Someone is making this an ‘in your face’ situation. Someone is behind the scenes pumping this excrescence into the collective mind’s water supply. Someone made Kayne West famous and I suspect it was not his genius. Someone is searching the landscape high and low for new possibilities, day after day for another bad light to present you, the human race, in. I haven’t seen any network TV in many years. I watched the 2000 election on CNN… then there was another long dry spell on the other side. I don’t think I have to watch any of this to get the sense of what it is. Evidence of the impact of culture on the conditions of life is evident everywhere. There is cause, motivation and intent.

A decade or so ago, Disney hooked up with Tavistock and MKUltra on a little genetic experiment. They’d seen what happened with The Spice Girls and they wanted to expand on that concept, so the lab techs cooked up some polystyrene Mouseketeers and groomed them for the celebrity chute. Out came a Spears and a Timberlake and an Aguilera too. N’Sync and other permutations followed. There was an interesting contrast between white bread polysaccharides and gangsta-rapping, Hilfiger jacket wearing, expletive artistes.

In a time of war and plunder, stupidity is a rampaging nation’s greatest asset. If you don’t plan ahead you have to fly by the seat of your pants. This isn’t all that hard either given the location of the brain at the time. It seems to me they stuck their toe in the water with that MTV show, Real World. It’s as real as you want it to be baby. It is interesting… or it will be interesting to future archaeologists to explore the myriad similarities of the time. No doubt they will come across scientific papers that detailed the isolation of the Agent Stupid gene. Maybe it will turn out that it was a laboratory product that was added afterwards. It doesn’t matter if it was always a part of the human organism or if they created it. What happened… happened.

In entirely different laboratories they were working on soft drink cultures and they found that aspartame and other chemicals most definitely made you fat. Fat and stupid are a formidable combination. On the social end there appeared the psych workers whose job was to legitimize every excess as another painful road to general acceptance. As the all embracing arms of the modern world were extended to clasp every emerging perversion to her perfumed breast, the fisters and pain freaks; the pedophiles and animal amorists, the pierced and the bound brought forth the new vision of the returning Jesus, morphing into Ashtaroth rising from The Pit.

In the middle of this unbridled excess there came the Speech Police who monitored every word and phrase for bias against the engines of decadence as rapture. On the one hand, freedom was license. On the other hand, objection was crime, as was accurate definition. Definition of anything was an illegal restriction, unless the definition coincided with the intent of those creating the conditions. Madonna became a mystical cabbalist and if one looked closely they could see the flaming Hebrew letters dancing up her inner thighs to what is purported to be The Promised Land. Here the Roman armies had trekked a time or two before. It was the Lincoln Tunnel at rush hour, transmogrified into the gates of St. Peter.

In the times before the times that awakening crashed down upon the malls and media, hypocrisy became the most celebrated performance of the day. Powerful leaders could wax eloquently about peace, while murdering shepherds and farmers for the fuel that lay beneath their fields and gardens. As the job opportunities were erased, the military opened their gates to the ranks and rows of canon fodder, which moved in slipstreams from the unemployment benefits lines to the enlistment lines. The survival and self interest centers of the human herd were amplified and intensified by invisible beams from cell phone towers. The effluvium from pharmaceutical factories was discharged into the water supplies; they had to stone the village in order to save it. Men grew breasts and women turned into hydras. We entered through the rear end into the Land of Myth and Legend. They electrified the fantasies of children with tales of super heroes, bound in service to the very forces that created the mayhem in the first place. The state became the First Temple of Unholy Prostitutes that worked for the Mac-Daddy Pimp corporations.

It did not matter as one new absurdity followed the other. Nothing real remained to compare it against. The unreal had become real. The prophet had been sent packing and humanity itself was just another commodity on the endless rows of shelves that curved away into unimaginable distances. Somewhere, impossibly far ahead, was the checkout counter. Somewhere, far, far back in an unremembered past, it had all begun. Was it the result of conditions imposed or was it written into the genetic code? Somehow the abusers always had a great deal more cachet than the saviors. Was it before or after Esau?

There appears to be no limit to how insane it might become. Whatever it is it will seem normal and woe betide the unaware who question its presence. The impressive and indomitable force of stupid, reigns supreme over the land. Stupid is genius. Stupid is God. Stupid is as stupid does and stupid does what it pleases. Stupid will kill itself before you day after day and then rise from the dead to lead the legions of stupid to the place where stupid rests.

They have not yet opened the gates of the chittering worlds that wait behind them, in the coliseums where you have been marched, at the behest of Stupid. There is still a semblance of order and the highways of hope are constructed by the hour and woven out of the words of the liars who have led you to this place. The true beauty of Stupid is that it will never occur to Stupid what it cost and what was lost. Perhaps Stupid is indestructible and is the heir to a kingdom that only he can see. Some certain and profound confidence motivates Stupid and only Stupid knows what that is. Sometimes you just run out of things to say and… this is one of those times."

"Since shortly after oil began spewing into the Gulf of Mexico two months ago, relief wells have been discussed as the ultimate solution, their success in permanently plugging the runaway well deemed a foregone conclusion. But BP and government officials are now talking about a long-term containment plan to pump the oil to an existing platform should the relief well effort fail. While such a failure is considered highly unlikely, the contingency plan is the latest sign that with this most vexing of engineering challenges — snuffing a gusher 5,000 feet down in the gulf — nothing is a sure thing.

Kent Wells, a BP senior vice president in charge of subsea containment and capping efforts, said Monday that the first relief well was “progressing very well” and on target to intercept the runaway well more than three miles below the surface of the gulf. “It’s not a matter so much of if, as when,” Mr. Wells said of the effort, which will involve pumping heavy mud and cement through the relief well into the damaged well to plug the damaged well permanently. “But we always said we wanted to have backups for backups,” he added about the contingency plan, which was first revealed by Adm. Thad W. Allen of the Coast Guard, the national incident commander for the spill.

Experts said it was conceivable that the “kill” procedure would not be effective, particularly if only a single relief well was used and the bottom of the well bore was damaged in the initial blowout. Pumping large quantities of erosive mud into the well could even end up damaging the well further, hindering later efforts to seal it. “I won’t say there haven’t been relief wells that haven’t worked,” said a technician involved in the effort. There are questions about the damaged well’s condition, particularly near the point where the interception would take place, and whether it could affect the kill procedure. “No human being alive can know the answers,” said the technician, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to comment on the work.

The backup plan would involve continuing to collect the oil through several systems at the wellhead and pumping it through a subsea pipeline to an existing production platform at least several miles away. Mr. Wells said several platforms had been identified as possibilities, although no decisions had been made.

BP is currently drilling two relief wells from rigs that are each about a half-mile from the site of the blown-out well. The first well is about a thousand feet vertically from the interception point and more than 17,000 feet below sea level. The second well, which was started about two weeks later than the first, is not as far along, and Mr. Wells said Monday that if the first well succeeded in plugging the gusher, drilling of the second would be halted. “We feel very good about the progress we’ve made,” he said.

The company was still holding to a timetable of early August for completion of the first relief well, Mr. Wells added, barring delays due to bad weather. Tropical Storm Alex, which is expected to become a hurricane and is on track to hit Texas, is not expected to delay the drilling effort. Mr. Wells said that the first well had closed within about 20 feet horizontally of the damaged well, and that crews would be conducting 8 to 12 more magnetic ranging tests — each of which takes about half a day — to determine the precise location of the metal casing pipe in the damaged well bore. The goal is to continue to drill the relief well in parallel with the damaged well to within about 200 feet vertically of the interception point, and within five feet horizontally. Then the remaining 200 feet will be drilled, and a milling device will be used to cut into the casing pipe of the runaway well.

Once the two wells are connected, heavy drilling mud will be pumped down the relief well and into the damaged well’s bore, building up a column of mud that would eventually exert enough downward force to overcome the pressure of the rising oil. Mr. Wells said there were roughly 44,000 barrels of mud available at the site. The advantage of such a “bottom kill” is that it immediately starts to reduce pressure in the damaged well bore as the column of mud builds up, Mr. Wells said. This is in contrast to the “top kill” procedure, which was tried unsuccessfully last month, in which pressure builds as mud is pumped into the top of the well. BP officials said one reason the top-kill effort was abandoned was out of concern that a pressure buildup might damage the well.

The technician, who has knowledge of the effort, said he was optimistic that the relief-well procedure would succeed, in part because the frictional pressure of the mud in the well bore would contribute to its ability to overcome the pressure of the oil. But he said BP would improve its chances for success if it waited for the second relief well to be completed, so that it could pump twice as much mud into “a well that’s this powerful, this productive and this problematic.” He said that too little was known about the condition of the well bore near the bottom — whether, for instance, it had been enlarged by the high-pressure flow of oil over the past two months. “The engineering suggests that one relief well is enough,” he said. “But there are just all these unknowns.”

"The deposit is said to be either the largest or the second largest oil deposit ever found, capable of producing 500,000 b/d for 10 or 15 years. It is massive, covering an offshore area of something like 25,000 square miles (64,750 sq.km). One blogger said Natural Gas and Oil is already tapping into the deposit from as far inland as Central Alabama and way over into Florida and even over to Louisiana as almost as far as Texas. The deposit’s natural gas component is reportedly estimated at 10,000 times its oil content. Its central pressure is said to be 165,000-170,000 PSI. In short, it’s a huge bomb in the nucleus of the earth. That’s why BP can’t blow up the leak-site with torpedoes or nuclear weapons as some people have suggested in the hope of sealing up the hole."

So IF the borepipe they're drilling to hasn't already been completely eroded away and destroyed by the escaping crud from the reservoir, powered by 165,000 PSI, all they have to do is cut the pipe and pump the cement into it. Of course they have hydraulic machinery/pumps that can do that, right? Right? Uh oh... - CP

Visitor Map

Who-When, Where,How ? ? ? ?

Fair Use Disclaimer, US Copyright Law

This blog may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. All posts are clearly attributed by name and active link to the original author and website. I am making such material available on a non-profit basis for educational, research and discussion purposes in my efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in US Copyright Law, Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. Consistent with this notice you are welcome to make 'fair use' of anything you find on this web site. However, if you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.More information at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.